Amy Mall's Blog: Solving Global Warming

Oil shale and water in the Rockies

2009-03-23T19:17:01Z

Our colleagues at Western Resource Advocates just released a report called "Water on the Rocks" that catalogues all the water rights in Colorado that have been acquired by oil shale interests, or could be used by them, to develop oil shale on a commercial scale. WRA concludes: "The volume of both water and rights is staggering."

The report found that energy companies have the right to divert enough water each year to meet the needs of 8-10 million people. This water is currently used for agriculture and to supply communities in the mountains and on Colorado's Front Range. If the water was instead shifted to industrial oil shale production, it would impact many different water users.

Commercial oil shale production would also increase greenhouse gas emissions and further threaten the precious water supply in Colorado. We need policies that will lead us to a sustainable energy future -- not practices that will devour and/or contaminate our water, an already shrinking vital resource.

More Evidence: the Sensibility of Closing Clean Air Act Loopholes

2009-02-12T20:32:50Z

A new report was just issued on "Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements." The report was conducted by Dr. Al Armendariz, an environmental engineering professor at Southern Methodist University.

Among his conclusions:

(1) The oil and gas sector likely has greater emissions than motor vehicles in the five counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area with significant oil and gas production.

(2) Natural gas drilling in the region is generating considerable emissions of air toxic compounds like benzene and formaldehyde.

(3) The predicted 2009 emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane are roughly equivalent to the expected greenhouse gas impact from two 750 megawatt coal-fired power plants.

(4) Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Armendariz concluded that cost effective control strategies are readily available "off-the-shelf," can substantially reduce emissions and, in some cases, can reduce costs for oil and gas operators due to a resulting increased production of natural gas and condensate. In an interview with Land Letter, he said that, "These solutions are universal.....People can certainly start applying these ideas in other areas."

Our conclusion? It's time to update our regulation of hazardous emissions from oil and gas exploration and production, starting with closing the loopholes in the Clean Air Act. Technical solutions are readily available to protect human health and our climate, and they don't pose an unreasonable economic burden to companies.

Take the Low (Carbon) Road to Energy Security

2009-02-09T23:48:02Z

The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) and the World Resources Institute recently worked together to publish "A Roadmap for a Secure, Low-Carbon Energy Economy." The Roadmap is intended to produce win-win-win recommendations that benefit energy security, our economy, and the climate. The Board of CSIS includes dignitaries such as Henry Kissinger, William Cohen, Brent Scrowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, and is chaired by Sam Nunn.

The Roadmap discusses, among other things, dirty fuels -- those that create more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels. Those dirty fuels include oil shale, tar sands, and liquid coal. The authors conclude that these high-carbon fuels are pitfalls that should be avoided because they "....do not offer the promise of long-term security and low emissions" and "....will be costly to develop, and present sizeable environmental challenges, including significantly higher carbon dioxide emissions relative to conventional fossil fuels."

Instead, the authors recommend that U.S. decisionmakers establish a long-term vision for a secure, low-carbon energy future. In several last-minute actions, the Bush administration attempted to jump-start the oil shale industry at the expense of Western land and water, and the climate. Fortunately, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said he will review the Bush action plan for oil shale, which "was not the wise thing to do at this point in time."

Going-out-of-Business Sale on Dirty Fuels

2009-01-14T20:10:35Z

There is less than a week before President-elect Obama's inauguration. Tomorrow, there will be a Senate hearing on the nominee for the new Secretary of the Interior--Senator Ken Salazar. Nevertheless, despite the many changes in Washington, the Bush administration is staying its course with midnight maneuvers to lease new parcels of public wildlands in the West for oil shale development.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is asking companies to nominate parcels of land they would want to lease. They can nominate up to 640 acres and the leases would last for ten years, with an option to extend to 20 years if research is successful.

Ultimately, about two million acres of public lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are at stake. Commercial production of oil shale threatens air and water quality, wildlife habitat, water supply, and community health in the region. It will also lead to increased global warming pollution. Instead of burning this caveman fuel, we need a national energy vision that focuses on sustainable solutions, including vehicle efficiency, homegrown renewable energy, and alternative vehicles, all of which will create new jobs and protect our environment.

This is the change we expect from the Obama administration. Senator Salazar has repeatedly called for a cautious and orderly process in our national oil shale policy. Recently, regarding new regulations, he said: "The Bush Administration has fallen into the trap of allowing political timelines to trump sound policy." This is the case again with today's announcement. The Bush administration should refrain from rushing harmful policies and gifts to industry and instead allow the new Secretary of the Interior to review the national oil shale policy and help craft a new energy future.

For more information, go to www.stopdirtyfuels.org

Big gift for big oil

2008-11-20T23:41:46Z

Earlier this week the Bush administration announced another parting gift for Big Oil in the form of new oil shale regulations. What America, and the world, really needs is investment in clean energy solutions -- like plug-in cars -- that will reduce our dependence on oil. Instead, the Bush administration has chosen to invest taxpayer subsidies in a dirty fuel with production operations that would destroy wildlife habitat, increase greenhouse gas emissions, and suck up limited water resources. About two million acres of public land are at stake -- land that belongs to all Americans.

Last month I wrote about our concerns with the draft regulations. Now the regulations have been finalized, and our concerns remain unchanged. The administration issued regulations for an industry that won't exist for at least a decade or more, providing favorable royalty rates that give oil shale production a better deal than conventional oil and gas, even though oil shale presents greater global warming impacts. It's impossible for a government agency to write appropriate regulations for an industry that doesn't exist, using technologies that are as yet undetermined, with the full extent of environmental and other impacts unknown. This is the kind of thing that makes people distrust their government. More information is available in NRDC's press statement.

Fine print, oil shale, and Cap'n Crunch

2008-10-08T19:28:47Z

Read the fine print and you'll find that the financial rescue package passed by Congress last week also provided a big favor for dirty fuels that have a much greater climate impact than conventional fuel. Yep - more than $4 billion of taxpayer dollars was given away to oil companies refining tar sands, oil shale, or liquid coal. This special gift was included even though companies are already building tar sands refineries without any government hand-out.

Dirty fuels have been a hot topic in D.C. this year. Some politicians claimed that oil shale regulations were needed to help lower gas prices. This was pure snake oil, given that research on oil shale technologies won't be completed for years, and any real commercial-scale production is likely decades away. But companies are interested in locking in favorable rules to lease large tracts of public land while there is an industry-friendly administration, and the Bush administration is cooperating by rushing to finalize regulations before it leaves office. How a government agency can write regulations for an industry that does not exist and for technologies and impacts that are unknown is beyond me. Nevertheless, the administration's proposed regulations offer favorable royalty rates to industry and lack environmental protections. Some members of Colorado's congressional delegation worked to put these regulations on hold until research is completed and industrial impacts are known, but were unsuccessful in the melee of gas price politics.

Last week I visited the lands in western Colorado that are the prime target for oil shale development. Much of the land remains untouched and a haven for wildlife.

NRDC recently co-sponsored a series of presentations in Colorado and Utah on oil shale and tar sands. Photographer Garth Lenz presented his photos of the tragic devastation occurring in Canada's boreal forest. His photos are a lot better than mine! You can see them yourself at: www.garthlenz.com. His photos hold important lessons for any future oil shale development in the lower 48. In addition, energy analyst Randy Udall presented his analysis of oil shale, including his conclusion that oil shale has less energy potential than Cap'n Crunch® cereal.

You can read more about these dirty fuels at www.stopdirtyfuels.org and about NRDC's proposals for cleaner solutions through fuel efficiency, conservation, and renewable alternatives at: http://beyondoil.nrdc.org/.